No wonder nothing ever gets done about climate change. Political leaders like Trudeau are full on hypocrites who love to pretend they are concerned about climate change, but whose actions actually promote the expanded use of oil and other fossil fuels that cause climate change.

When it comes to politicians you've got to pay attention to what they do, not what they say.

SHEESH!

The lack of speed has to go faster---Joe BidenI will defeat Joe Biden---Joe Biden-----------------------------------------------------------Keep running between the raindrops.

Winston Churchill once said, "Where there is great power there is great responsibility".

We entrust politicians with great power. If those politicians then act irresponsibly or fail to act or intentionally take destructive actions then we must hold them responsible for their failings. Otherwise nothing will ever change.

Its pretty clear that Justin Trudeau is being a flaming hypocrite to declare a climate emergency and then the next day grant approval to a new oil pipeline which will allow expanded development of the Alberta tar sands. Trudea's personal actions will lead to the release of millions more tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, with concomitant increases in global heating that will affect the entire planet.

Trying to equate the climate impacts that you or me or Dohboi has with what Justin Trudeau has just done doesn't make sense, IMHO, because the impact of Justin Trudeau allowing the huge new oil pipeline to be built is millions of times larger and more destructive then anything you or I or Dohboi will ever do.

Cheers!

The lack of speed has to go faster---Joe BidenI will defeat Joe Biden---Joe Biden-----------------------------------------------------------Keep running between the raindrops.

Trudea's personal actions will lead to the release of millions more tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, with concomitant increases in global heating that will affect the entire planet.

First off it is the actions of the Liberal party, not that of Trudeau which isn't surprising given he has a brain the size of a pea and no doubt has a hard time deciding what pair of socks to wear let alone policy of any sort.

More importantly, the calculated upstream additional impact from TMX pipeline being built is ~13 MMtonne of CO2 per year. Currently Canada outputs 617 MMtonne of CO2/yr compared to the China at 2,397 MMtonne /yrand the US at 5,107 MMtonne/yr. In other words Canada has a 1.5% share of global CO2 emissions meaning they have a similar share of projected heating (assuming you believe the models and the ridiculous RCP 8.5 projection). So if the projected heating is 2 C by 2100 then Canada would be responsible for 0.03 degrees C of warming or 0.0004 C/yr (find an instrument that will measure that ).So the addition of TMX supply through a new pipeline would amount to a proportionate share of the 2100 heating due to CO2 based on the increased CO2. That amounts to a total to 2100 of 0.0007 C of heating or 0.000009 C/yr.

Trudeau is an SJW sock puppet. The first thing he did in office was to change the name of Environment Canada to Environment and Climate Change Canada. He did not change its funding by 1 cent and did not prioritize climate change adaptation and research. In fact, he consolidated the anti-climate change science policies of Harper.

Canadian Liberals are the rubber stamp on the Canadian Conservative Party. They are an utter joke.

If CO2 was actual "pollution" your claim would have to look at industrialization, vehicle use etc. But I'm sure there are a lot of ferns, grain crops, trees etc that would take issue with you calling CO2 pollution.

rockdoc123 wrote:If CO2 was actual "pollution" your claim would have to look at industrialization, vehicle use etc.

Exactly right.

The use of Fossil fuels release CO2 which is classified as a "pollutant" by the EIA in the USA and many other environmental agencies around the world, hence the concern about CO2 emissions from industrialization, vehicle use, etc.

Cheers!

The lack of speed has to go faster---Joe BidenI will defeat Joe Biden---Joe Biden-----------------------------------------------------------Keep running between the raindrops.

The use of Fossil fuels release CO2 which is classified as a "pollutant" by the EIA in the USA

a political ploy that is not substantiated by the science given CO2 is something that life on earth requires, it is neither a contaminant, poison or toxin that makes air or water harmful by it's presence. It's affects are indirect, not direct. You could classify an elephant as an ungulate if it fit your argument....doesn't mean it actually is one or ambulates in the same manner.

rockdoc123 wrote: CO2 is something that life on earth requires, it is neither a contaminant, poison or toxin that makes air or water harmful by it's presence. It's affects are indirect, not direct.

Of course. But CO2 is also a greenhouse gas that is accumulating in the atmosphere and contributing to global heating. Thats why there is so much attention being paid to monitoring and hopefully limiting CO2 emissions into the atmosphere by the US and other countries.

Get it now?

Cheers!

The lack of speed has to go faster---Joe BidenI will defeat Joe Biden---Joe Biden-----------------------------------------------------------Keep running between the raindrops.

Of course. But CO2 is also a greenhouse gas that is accumulating in the atmosphere and contributing to global heating. Thats why there is so much attention being paid to monitoring and hopefully limiting CO2 emissions into the atmosphere by the US and other countries.

Get it now?

Jesus wept....read the posts. I was replying to Kieth_McClary who was claiming CO2 was a pollutant. There was no discussion about greenhouse gases. Stay on topic.

Plantagenet wrote:CO2 is also a greenhouse gas that is accumulating in the atmosphere and contributing to global heating. Thats why there is so much attention being paid to monitoring and hopefully limiting CO2 emissions into the atmosphere by the US and other countries.

An impassioned plea, Plant. Along those line, I await your announcement that you will no longer travel by air, the single most polluting act an individual can do. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then maybe stop starting threads like this because they only continue to highlight your own individual hypocrisy.

BOLD PREDICTIONS-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.

I started this thread. If you'll actually read the posts in this thread you'll find that there actually is a lot of discussion about CO2 being a Greenhouse gas.

as I said....I was responding directly to a post where it was claimed CO2 is a pollutant, I was not commenting on it being a greenhouse gas nor responding to any other post....but that didn't stop you from twisting my comments. Par for course with you I'm afraid.

You can't discuss the designation of CO2 as a pollutant without considering the reason, i.e. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

As I said up thread:

it is neither a contaminant, poison or toxin that makes air or water harmful by it's presence. It's affects are indirect, not direct. You could classify an elephant as an ungulate if it fit your argument....doesn't mean it actually is one or ambulates in the same manner.

It was a political ploy for EIA to classify it as a pollutant (allowed them to be in charge of managing it) and nothing more.

But I've said that already...you just want to change the discussion, as you always do. Please just go away.

rockdoc123 wrote:It was a political ploy for EIA to classify it as a pollutant (allowed them to be in charge of managing it)

I suppose if you don't accept the scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then the classification of CO2 as a pollutant must seem political and even capricious. But once you understand the science involved and accept the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and releases of CO2 are changing the planet's climate then the classification of CO2 as a pollutant makes eminently good sense.

Cheers!

The lack of speed has to go faster---Joe BidenI will defeat Joe Biden---Joe Biden-----------------------------------------------------------Keep running between the raindrops.

On average, each Canadian released about 20.6 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year just five years ago. Today that is up to 22 tons per person, showing that Canada is doing a a terrible job of tacking their CO2 emission problem. Allowing increases in CO2 emissions as the world gets hotter and hotter is very irresponsible. I expected better from Canada.

If you break it down further, most of the CO2 is coming from the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Canadians are usually nice people. Maybe its because deep down inside they are ashamed and embarrassed to be the worst CO2 polluters on the entire planet when measured on a per capita basis.

Cheers!

The lack of speed has to go faster---Joe BidenI will defeat Joe Biden---Joe Biden-----------------------------------------------------------Keep running between the raindrops.

I suppose if you don't accept the scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then the classification of CO2 as a pollutant must seem political and even capricious. But once you understand the science involved and accept the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and releases of CO2 are changing the planet's climate then the classification of CO2 as a pollutant makes eminently good sense.

don't be a moron.....where did I say that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Please find the quote. I understand the science very well.

So if the reason (you seem to think) that CO2 is a pollutant is that it is a greenhouse gas then I guess you would also classify water as a pollutant? Water vapor is the largest by volume of greenhouse gases and it, like CO2 is a requirement for life to exist on the planet. Let the special pleading begin.

Report shows that Canada has the highest CO2 emissions per capita of any country in the G20

so now you are going to tell us that it is the CO2 per capita that is important in calculating out equilibrium climate sensitivity? You must be joking. Total volume of CO2 is all that matters.....Canada's total amount of CO2 output is 1.5% of the total global output. That is the only percentage that matters in terms of impact as I pointed out up thread. But continue to impress us with your stupidity.

maybe it would help if you actually quoted what I said in proper context.

here is what I said:

So if the reason (you seem to think) that CO2 is a pollutant is that it is a greenhouse gas then I guess you would also classify water as a pollutant? Water vapor is the largest by volume of greenhouse gases and it, like CO2 is a requirement for life to exist on the planet.

and your response is water is not a pollutant....well, of course, it isn't but what that means is using an argument that CO2 is a pollutant because it is a greenhouse gas (which is exactly what you did) is pretty lame and in the category of special pleading. As I have said there is no rationale whatsoever to claim CO2 is a pollutant. EIA may have classified it that way but you are playing the role of proud advocate for them.

And it was you who claimed that CO2 per capita was somehow important to climate change....it isn't. As I have pointed out it is total CO2 (hence my reference to ECS) of which Canada is actually a very small contributor (1.5% of the World's total). If somehow you think you have a climate model that inputs CO2 on a per capita basis then please share it with us.

I quote you saying that because you are the one who said it. Falsely ascribing it to me or implying I think that is nonsense. I don't think that or believe that. That is entirely your wacky idea.

I understand that you are arguing by analogy, but don't suggest I have anything to do with your crazy idea that water is a pollutant. Its your idea and your analogy. You could say, for instance, "How about water......why isn't it classified as a pollutant rather then trying to pretend I have anything to with your idea. Its just basic honesty for you to Take responsibility for your own ideas.

rockdoc123 wrote: As I have said there is no rationale whatsoever to claim CO2 is a pollutant. EIA may have classified it that way but you are playing the role of proud advocate for them.

I'm not "proud" to advocate for the EPA. I'm simply explaining their rationale to you. The bottom line is the EPA has classified CO2 as a pollutant.

rockdoc123 wrote: moron.

So you are indeed one of those morons who gets a little thrill out calling other people names.

How old are you, anyway? I'm getting a picture of you as being very very old, and losing it a bit and becoming emotionally childish and hence getting a little thrill out of calling people names. Do I have the right impression of you?

Cheers!

The lack of speed has to go faster---Joe BidenI will defeat Joe Biden---Joe Biden-----------------------------------------------------------Keep running between the raindrops.